‘Who governs’ the Berlin metropolitan region? The strategic-relational construction of metropolitan space in Berlin-Brandenburg spatial and economic development policies

Enrico Gualini and Carola Fricke Institute of Urban and Regional Planning Technische Universität Berlin – Berlin University of Technology

RC21 Conference Urbino 2015 session G5: Governing Metropolitan Cities

Abstract

‘Who governs’ the Berlin metropolitan region? Berlin is an unusual case of metropolitan rescaling, and the Berlin metropolitan region anything but a unitary ‘policy space’. On the one hand, post-reunification Berlin has been involved in institutional initiatives for constituting metropolitan space through territorial reforms as well as in experimenting new comprehensive frameworks for conjoint intergovernmental governance. On the other hand, territorial reforms have been progressively demised in favor of policy- based intergovernmental cooperation, while reference to the policy concept of ‘metropolitan region’ has not led to any specific initiatives in institution building. Between the mid-1990s and the mid-2000s, the rise and fall of territorial hypotheses of building a metropolitan region has been backed by the consolidation of practices of flexible, ad-hoc and functionally targeted institutional cooperation. The open policy framework represented by designation as metropolitan ‘capital region’ has turned into a branding and legitimizing device for a loosely-coupled approach to policy-based cooperation which, while not questioning institutional and territorial settings, flexibly mobilizes interests and resources towards performative development goals. Accordingly, rescaling in the Berlin metropolitan region is not occurring in a comprehensive political-institutional form, as an ‘explicit project’. The more significant, however, is that rescaling is occurring, as an ‘implicit project’, through governance practices and discourses which constitute a variety of understandings of metropolitan space.

The paper addresses how understandings of metropolitan space are being constituted in current spatial and economic development policies for Berlin-Brandenburg. It follows the hypothesis that no single-unitary understanding of metropolitan space exists in Berlin as an explicit expression of a ‘metropolitan project’, but rather a heteronomy of metropolitan discourses and practices which express different and possibly competing ‘implicit’ metropolitan projects. ‘Metropolitan space’ is therefore seen as an emerging construct defined by strategic-relational interplays between public and private actors and by the selective involvement of their interests and resources in the domain of specific spatial- economic development policies. Analysing the discursive construction of metropolitan space within specific policy arenas therefore offers a significant perspective on ‘who governs’ metropolitan development and on how this is possibly tied to the emergence of hegemonic understandings of scalar references for metropolitan policies.

contact:

Prof. Dr. Enrico Gualini, Carola Fricke MA Chair of Planning Theory and Urban-Regional Policy Analysis ISR – Institute of Urban and Regional Planning Technische Universität Berlin – Berlin University of Technology Hardenbergstr. 40a, D - 10623 Berlin [email protected], [email protected] http://www.planningtheory.tu-berlin.de

0. Introduction

Metropolitan space as strategic-relational construct

The paper addresses the question of ‘who governs’ the Berlin metropolitan region through an inquiry on how understandings of metropolitan space are being constituted in current spatial and economic development policies for Berlin-Brandenburg. It is based on the observation that, under current political-institutional conditions, there is anything but a unitary ‘policy space’ in the Berlin metropolitan region. This empirical observation supports our theoretical hypothesis that – in Berlin as elsewhere – metropolitan space is being constructed and re-defined in different policy arenas and according to different rationales of governance and regulation.

Accordingly, the construction of metropolitan space in the Berlin region is not occurring in a comprehensive political-institutional form, as an explicit ‘metropolitan project’, or as what is often implied by the expression ‘political rescaling’. Even more significant is the fact that an ‘explicit’ metropolitan project is being displaced. This means that the construction of metropolitan space is occurring, in more ‘implicit’ ways, through a variety of policy practices and discourses which constitute diverse and partially competing understandings of metropolitan space. While no single-unitary or consistent understanding of metropolitan space exists in Berlin as expression of an effective ‘metropolitan project’, a heteronomy of metropolitan discourses and practices has been emerging which express different and possibly competing ‘implicit’ metropolitan projects.

‘Metropolitan space’ is therefore seen as an emerging construct defined by – and as a ‘stake’ of – the strategic-relational interplay between public and private policy actors and by the selective involvement of their interests and resources in specific policies domains.

In particular, this paper discusses a significant shift, which occurred in the last decade in practices contributing to the construction of metropolitan space, from the domain of institutional reforms and intergovernmental territorial cooperation to the sphere of ‘active’ spatial-economic development policies.

Analysing the construction of metropolitan space within specific policy arenas may therefore offer a significant perspective on ‘who governs’ metropolitan development and on how this relates to the emergence of new hegemonic understandings of the scalar references for metropolitan policies.

Rescaling as ‘explicit’ and as ‘implicit’ project

This paper understands the construction of metropolitan space as a process of rescaling. It relates ‘scale’ and ‘rescaling’ to phenomena of redefining the spatial reference of policy and governance practices in relation to emergent (and selectively perceived) spatial development issues. It is therefore embedded in research and theorizing on the ‘political economy of scale’ and a contribution to its empirical underpinning.

Metropolitan policy and governance, in a perspective of ‘political economy of scale’, are instances of more general processes of de- and re-territorialization related to internal (endogenous) and external (exogenous) challenges affecting the nation state as a site of socio-economic regulation.

The struggle for reconfiguring the spatiality of the state, as a condition for its capacity of socio- economic regulation, paradigmatically questions ‘nested’ territorial relationship between local, regional and national levels of government and governance – and related geographical assumptions – and leads to developing policy and governance forms aimed at “rearticulating the relationship between organizations and tasks across this divide on whatever territorial scale(s) the state in question acts” (Jessop 2002: 199).

The emergent and constructed character – in strong contrast to any attempt at quasi-natural, objectivating definitions – of metropolitan regions as policy objects is a paradigmatic expression of such phenomena (cf. Brenner 2003, 2004). Under such conditions, spatial policy and governance become emergent, experimental practices in which a redefinition of scalar frames for agency is co- constitutively implicated.

Gualini and Fricke – RC21 Conference Urbino 2015 session G5: Governing Metropolitan Cities 2

The resulting governance arrangements can be framed either by belonging to distinct domains – e.g. according to political-institutional criteria of division or complementarity of tasks – or, as is often the case, by belonging to co-extensive, overlapping and possibly conflicting domains, potentially implying a lack of political-institutional coherence. These frames, in turn, are co-constitutively related to the scalar definition of their action rationale. A potential tension may therefore arise across governance practices developing at different scales. The result is the emergence of forms of multiscalar governance (Jessop 2004), involving a rearticulation of spatial governance arenas beyond ’nested’ territorial hierarchies, as well as of practices of multiscalar metagovernance (Jessop 2009) as the attempt to realize effective coordination of governance practices across scales beyond hierarchical rule and authoritarian coordination. Scale compatibility – or ‘compossibility’ (Jones and Jessop 2010) emerges therefore as an issue of coexistence and consistency between governance rationales in a context defined by institutional fragmentation and scale redundancy.

A perspective of ‘political economy of scale’ emphasizes therefore the challenges and contradictions – and the potentials for governance failure – involved in rescaling practices leading to the emergence of new state scalar configurations (cf. Brenner 2004; Jessop 2002, 2009).

According to this theoretical framework, we understand metropolitan space in a dual way: in an anti- essentialist way, as a co-evolutionary outcome of scaling processes and, in a constructivist co- evolutionary way, as a strategic-relational outcome of practices of governance and regulation which selectively address these processes.

This means that the spatial features of metropolitan regions – and, as their characteristic feature, their changing scalar definition – are the combined outcome of the scaling of economic, social and political processes and of the strategic selectivity of practices of governance and regulation in addressing these processes.

This outcome can be defined as ‘rescaling’, provided that the resulting ‘scales’ are understood as contingent constructs which are: - emergent and dynamic, as they are related to the re-definition of practices of governance and regulation – - strategic-relational, as they are specific to the actors and their forms of agency and interaction and to the arenas and processes mobilized by specific practices of governance and regulation; - and polymorphic, as they reflect the potentially multiple and heterogeneous nature of these practices of governance and regulation.

Processes of rescaling define new state scalar configurations. These new state scalar configurations can be seen as the expressions, to a significant extent, of state ‘scalar projects’ (cf. Brenner 2004). However, the way we understand this notion in the context of our research needs to be specified.

First, such ‘scalar projects’ are neither equal to projects of the (re-)design of political-institutional scales, nor exclusive to them – as is often implied by the term ‘political rescaling’ and by the assumption of its primacy in defining new policy spaces (such as metropolitan space) as the result of a ‘scalar project’.

The term ‘political rescaling’ may bear a specific meaning as it expresses the need to distinguish, in the framework of scholarly debates on the ‘construction of scale’, scalar effects more directly related to changes in state institutions and to a ‘design intentionality’ of territorial reform. As such, it refers to specific forms of state agency. It would be a fallacy, however, to equate this aspect to a distinction between state-related (or state-led) and non-state-related scalar effects: this would in fact equal assuming a ‘narrow’ understanding of the state as identical with the logic of sovereignty and of agency of a Westphalian nested-hierarchical and bounded-territorial entity. Assuming scalar projects exclusively and primarily as an expression of state agency ‘in the narrow sense’ equals reproducing the fallacy of ‘methodological territorialism’ in understanding state spatiality (cf. Jessop 2002; Brenner 2004).

In order to understand emerging state scalar configurations, however, we need to adopt an understanding of the state ‘in the integral sense’, as the complex of practices which produce ‘state effects’, in general, through the re-definition of forms of socio-spatial regulation and, in particular,

Gualini and Fricke – RC21 Conference Urbino 2015 session G5: Governing Metropolitan Cities 3 through the introduction of forms of socio-spatial regulation which exceed and in part overlap and in part substitute to traditional forms of regulation based on territorial sovereignty and jurisdictional authority. This also implies – in line with this terminology – moving from a ‘logic of sovereignty’ to a ‘logic of regulation’ in defining the features of state spatiality

Accordingly, understanding rescaling processes and the emergence of new state scalar configurations requires moving from an understanding of state space in the ‘narrow’ sense, as “the state’s distinctive form of spatial organization as a discrete, territorially centralized, self-contained, and internally differentiated institutional apparatus”, to an understanding of state space in the ‘integral’ sense, as “the territory-, place-, and scale-specific ways in which state institutions are mobilized to regulate social relations and to influence their locational geographies” (Brenner 2004: 78). Thus, in a perspective of the state in ‘integral’ sense, processes of state rescaling refer to “the changing geographies of state intervention into socio-economic processes within a given territorial jurisdiction” – and hence to ‘explicit’ spatial policies – but also encompass “the indirect sociospatial effects that flow from apparently aspatial policies” (Brenner 2004: 78-79).

This in first instance implies that, in such rather ‘implicit’ spatial policies, territoriality and a logic of sovereignty do not necessarily prevail in informing policies, and that rather a variable and often ‘experimental’ combination of spatial logics may be present (cf. Jessop, Brenner and Jones 2008).

Moreover, these different territorial or non-territorial rationales, taken singularly or in interaction with each other, may produce specific formations of state spatiality and, a fortiori, may produce them in a relationship of co-presence. This, however, is not necessarily systemically coherent. While contributing to establishing ‘polymorphic’ formations (Brenner 2004) in which different forms of state spatiality are complementary and/or compatible – i.e. ‘compossible’ – may also lead to formations in which the co- presence of different forms of state spatiality are incompatible – i.e. ‘incompossible’ (Jones and Jessop 2010). This may lead to the development of a field of tensions, not always apparent, not always contentious, but occasionally unresolved and contradictory. And this contributes to the contingent nature of new state scalar configurations.

Second, and by implication, state ‘scalar projects’ thus defined emerge often as an expression of strategic-selectivity rather than as a result of design intentionality. As we argue in this paper, precisely this shift bears significant witness of a restructuring of ways of governing in metropolitan regions. We develop this thesis along four main lines of argument, in a perspective of addressing the state and its spatiality in the ‘integral’ sense.

In the first place, this perspective opens to a proper understanding of the displacement of forms of socio-spatial regulation into the domain of (neo-liberal) economy-driven spatial development policies and projects.

In the second place, this perspective opens to an understanding of the emergence of forms of policy- driven rescaling which represent ‘implicit’ scalar projects – that is, which do not necessarily express an explicit scalar intentionality, but which bear significant effects in terms of rescaling of social-political processes.

In the third place, this perspective shows the space of possibility for state ‘scalar projects’ as variegated and as potentially competitive and/or contested: that is, as an instance of the ‘polymorphic political geographies’ (Brenner 2004) of statehood in late-capitalism, in which no privileged scale for socio-spatial regulation is given, but rather a dynamic, often tentative and experimental combination of practices (Jessop 2002) which develop contingent and possibly unstable state scalar configurations.

In the fourth place, this perspective reveals rescaling, accordingly, as the outcome of strategic- relational games through which, in specific arenas and forms of interactions, state and non-state actors compete for hegemony over understandings of scale.

In this sense we understand the theoretical frame of the ‘new political economy of scale’ (Jessop 2002) as an heuristics of power, and research on rescaling as a contribution to inquiring into the rearticulation of relationships between domination and hegemony in defining new state scalar configurations.

Gualini and Fricke – RC21 Conference Urbino 2015 session G5: Governing Metropolitan Cities 4

In terms of methodology, research on the ‘new political economy of scale’ (Jessop 2002) intended as a heuristics of power requires multiple approaches open to a dialectics of coevolution and multiple causality. In light of our current research, we envision three perspectives for inquiring into the strategic selectivity of rescaling processes: - in a more traditional policy analysis and governance research perspective: an analysis of approaches and instruments of spatial and economic development policy, of their actors, arenas and forms of interaction, and of the way they producing rescaling effects; - in a perspective of interpretive policy analysis: an analysis of discourses and of the discursive processes by which understandings of metropolitan space are constituted and come to complement or compete with each other in producing rescaling effects; - in a combined perspective aimed at contributing to a revision of concepts for the study of collective power in cities and regions: an analysis of the constitution of new scalar discourses through the identification of discursive coalitions or discursive ‘regimes’.

This paper addresses primarily the first dimension and places its main focus on the analysis of the role of economic development policies and of interactions between public and private actors in the construction of metropolitan scale. The overall questions addressed are: - what is the relationship between private and public actors in defining metropolitan scale and in the production and the governance of metropolitan development? - in which forms and arenas of public policy does this relationship come to play, and how do these affect the construction of metropolitan scale?

The analysis presented here is complementary to our inquiry into the variance of understandings of metropolitan scales involved in the discursive construction of metropolitan space (Fricke and Gualini 2014, 2015).

The paper develops in three steps: - first, the institutional setting and institutional initiatives for constituting metropolitan space (i.e. in the form of territorial reforms) are contrasted with their progressive demise in favor of more policy- based and flexible cooperation approaches and strategies; - second, shifts in practices of territorial reform and institutional cooperation are analyzed in light of changes in the rationale of economic development policies; - third, a provisional analysis is presented of the actors, arenas and interactions established within specific policies which express such shifts in rationale.

1. Shifts in the construction of Berlin’s ‘metropolitan space’

1.1. Berlin-Brandenburg: from metropolitan reform to functional-strategic cooperation

Compared to other ‘metropolitan regions’ in Germany, Berlin represents an unusual case in which the ‘central city’ is a Land – i.e. a federal state – and governance at the scale of the metropolitan region requires inter-state agreements (cf. Fürst 2005). In addition, there is no explicit or dominant metropolitan scale in the Berlin case, but rather a mono-centric structure dominated by Berlin with regional interdependencies based on a decidedly centre-periphery pattern which define a substantial dualism between the city-state of Berlin and the territorial state of Brandenburg.

Our analysis is therefore directed towards observing how metropolitan space in Berlin is constructed – in a prevailingly implicit way – according to different understandings and at multiple metropolitan scales. Given this particular situation, the institutional setting constitutes the necessary background for understanding practices and discourses contributing to defining the Berlin metropolitan region.

A first reason for adopting this perspective is the contradictory institutional treatment of the issue in the Berlin case (cf. Fricke and Gualini 2014). After German reunification, the issue of rescaling soon emerged as a question of boundary-spanning intergovernmental cooperation, backed by expectations for strong development of the economy in the Berlin agglomeration. Hypotheses for a rescaling of planning and governance in the Berlin metropolitan region developed since the early 1990s along two lines of practice and discourse – often intersecting, but implying distinctive ways of understanding ‘metropolitan space’:

Gualini and Fricke – RC21 Conference Urbino 2015 session G5: Governing Metropolitan Cities 5

- norm-oriented or functional-instrumental joint planning and governance activities among the Länder Berlin and Brandenburg; - institutional merger of the territorial jurisdictions of the Länder Berlin and Brandenburg (as part of the reframing of institutional-administrative state structures in former East-Germany).

Joint planning and governance activities were introduced early in order to account for the functional interdependencies between Berlin and the surrounding municipalities of Brandenburg. Their rescaling effects depended mainly on functional-instrumental models of governance: relevant examples were the proposal to establish a joint planning district between Berlin and Brandenburg in form of a functional municipal association in the fringe area, either by joining the outer Berlin boroughs and the surrounding Brandenburg municipalities (Zweckverband Berlin-Brandenburg, cf. Krappweis 2001: 226) or – on a more extended scale – by joining Berlin and the surrounding rural districts (Zweckverband Umland-Berlin, cf. Sauberzweig and Schmidt-Eichstaedt 1992). Despite not involving jurisdictional reform, such hypotheses of functional-instrumental mergers stressed political relationships between Berlin’s and Brandenburg’s polities and were ultimately opposed by the Brandenburg government.

What prevailed instead was a more norm-oriented form of cooperation in statutory territorial planning. Around the mid-1990s, a system of inter-state as well as inter-municipal cooperation in the field of regional planning was put in place. In 1993, Brandenburg succeeded in enforcing its own model of joint regional planning between Brandenburg and Berlin. The model was based on a ‘pie-slice’ territorial pattern (Tortenstückmodell) of five regional planning districts, organized in inter-municipal associations (Regionale Planungsgemeinschaften, cf. Benz et al. 1995) with local governments (rural districts or cities) as their members. The regional districts were to establish statutory regional plans – which were in fact adopted between 1998 and 2002 – and were supported by an inter-municipal ‘neighbourhood forum’ (Kommunales Nachbarschaftsforum) in order to coordinate the different planning districts in the Berlin fringe areas (cf. Kommunales Nachbarschaftsforum (KNF) 2007; Segebade and Elsing 2008).

The cooperation model was extended to the inter-state level of statutory territorial planning – Landesplanung, according to the German hierarchical planning system – and formalized in 1996 by an intergovernmental agreement establishing the joint Berlin-Brandenburg spatial development department (Gemeinsame Landesplanungsabteilung), complemented by a joint commission on planning as an inter-ministry agency (Benz et al. 1995; Häußermann 2003; Holtmann 2005).

Joint territorial planning however originally developed on the background of debates on the perspective of a merger between the Länder Berlin and Brandenburg. It represented an anticipation of the formal unification of jurisdictional competences envisioned by the territorial merger of the two states. The merger issue was therefore of utmost importance in defining the prospects of planning and governance practices at the metropolitan scale.

The jurisdictions of Berlin and Brandenburg were introduced after re-unification as an interim stage towards a merger. First steps were taken in the early 1990s. In 1992, the states’ governments established a common governmental commission to prepare the territorial reform, which led to an interstate merger treaty adopted by both parliaments in 1995. Public opinion and political coalitions in Brandenburg however were not strongly in favour of the measure. The perception of Berlin and Brandenburg as two separate political entities, supported by long historically engrained cultural and ideological resentments, was reinforced by concerns on the political-administrative and fiscal consequences of the merger, given the urban-rural dualism between the states’ territories and, ultimately, Brandenburg’s fear of being dominated by Berlin’s growth dynamic, development interests, and political influence (cf. Krappweis 2001: 217ff.; Tripke 2009; Hauswirth et al. 2003). In 1996, unlike in Berlin, a majority of voters in Brandenburg opposed the merger in a referendum. As a result of lacking popular support for the treaty, the territorial reform was called off.

After its failure, the issue of Länder merger never completely exited public debates. At the beginning of the 2000s, official documents recurrently named the merger of Berlin-Brandenburg as the main political goal of inter-state cooperation (Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung 2004; Vereinigung der Unternehmensverbände in Berlin und Brandenburg e.V. et al. 2004). Political attempts were also made to re-schedule a popular vote on the merger for 2009. Economic actors also occasionally re- emphasize their long-term interest in a territorial reform (Märkische Allgemeine 2010; Industrie und Handelskammer Berlin and Handwerkskammer Berlin). Recently, a revival of discussion was

Gualini and Fricke – RC21 Conference Urbino 2015 session G5: Governing Metropolitan Cities 6 promoted by the association Perspektive Berlin-Brandenburg (Perspektive Berlin-Brandenburg e.V. 2014), leading to a ‘secret meeting’ between the two heads of state, only to reach the conclusion that times for a merger were not ripe yet, and that the way of inter-state cooperation has to be enhanced instead (cf. Metzner 2013).

Nevertheless, the merger hypothesis has not been seriously re-launched ever since. Instead, Berlin- Brandenburg have moved on along the path introduced in the early 1990s of creating cooperation initiatives between existing territorial units in a less intensive and institutionalized, but more flexible and targeted fashion.

A wave of so-called ‘small mergers’ (Krappweis 2001: 216), ‘partial mergers’ (Tripke 2009), or forms of ‘cohabitation’ (wilde Ehe: cf. Arndt 2006), originally developed around the hypothesis – and partially in anticipation – of an overall territorial reform, where therefore continued after 1996 as an alternative to it. These initiatives of institutional cooperation, based on public contracts on the inter-state level, consolidated cooperation between Berlin and Brandenburg, while interest in pursuing a merger was declining with both political elites and public opinion (Industrie und Handelskammer Berlin and Handwerkskammer Berlin; Stiftung Zukunft Berlin 2014; Niedermayer and Stöss 2008). The trend towards establishing joint institutional initiatives of inter-state cooperation in spatial planning went on consistently in particular in connection with strategic infrastructure projects and specific locational policies – first and foremost, the development of the new international airport of Schönefeld.

1.2. The Berlin-Brandenburg ‘capital region’ as new symbolic frame

A further significant factor was development of a policy discourse on metropolitan regions at the federal level. In the mid-1990s, the concept of ‘European Metropolitan Regions’ was coined in Germany in the wake of a renewal of planning concepts at the federal policy level.

The concept was part of the reformulation of principles of federal spatial planning along more strategic, performance- and competitiveness-oriented criteria, mindful of policy debates on the emerging challenges of European integration for the economic performance of German cities which had emerged in the early 1990s (Brenner 2000; Gualini 2004). Against this background, ‘European Metropolitan Regions’ were introduced by the inter-ministry planning conference of the Länder (Ministerkonferenz für Raumordnung) as a new spatial governance category. In 1995, a federal strategic framework for spatial development policy (MKRO 1995) designated a first group of six metropolitan regions, including Berlin-Brandenburg. The exact definition of their spatial extension as well as their institutional structure were left open – to be defined by the designated metropolitan regions themselves – in a perspective of enhancing a “competition of successful models of city- regional self-organization” (Ministerkonferenz für Raumordnung, Geschäftsstelle im Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung (BMVBS) 2006).

Differently than in other cases, in Berlin-Brandenburg designation as a ‘metropolitan region’ did not originate specific initiatives in institutional building. Several reasons contributed to the fact that the introduction of the concept of ‘metropolitan regions’ in Germany was not used, in the case of Berlin, as a window of opportunity for either territorial reform or a comprehensive design of metropolitan rescaling. The primary factors for this, as we mentioned, reside in the political-institutional constraints to institutional reform through a merger at the Länder level. However, the open policy framework of ‘European Metropolitan Regions’, and the principle of purpose-oriented self-organization it pursued, offered without doubt a strong legitimation for an approach based on flexible forms of cooperation directed towards functional, ad-hoc policy objectives which, while not questioning institutional and territorial set-ups, could flexibly mobilize capacities and interests towards performative development goals.

Institutional practices in the construction of metropolitan policies and ‘policy spaces’ have thus developed along two different paths. On the one hand, the framework for inter-state and inter- municipal cooperation in the field of territorial and regional planning set up in the mid-1990 involved inter-governmental sharing of statutory competences, but no territorial-jurisdictional reforms, and barely affected the respective range of competences of Berlin and Brandenburg governmental actors. It rather constituted a general frame for adopting ad-hoc, functional and flexible forms of cooperation in several policy areas. On the other hand, the designation of Berlin-Brandenburg as a ‘metropolitan

Gualini and Fricke – RC21 Conference Urbino 2015 session G5: Governing Metropolitan Cities 7 region’ (Metropolregion), endowed with the additional entitlement of ‘capital region’ (Hauptstadtregion), became a recurrent trope in various planning concept at both the federal and the state level, but without bearing a significant substantive or binding content (cf. Fricke and Gualini 2014).

Our hypothesis is that the introduction of the spatial planning concept of ‘European Metropolitan Regions’ mainly served as a discursive frame rationalizing and legitimizing a variety of policy practices which, while formally eschewing political-institutional issues of territorial rescaling, introduced in fact several elements for redefining the scale of metropolitan policies.

In sum, between the mid-1990s and the mid-2000s we observe a double movement: on the one hand, the rise and fall of the hypothesis of pursuing metropolitan rescaling at the political-institutional level as an ‘explicit project’ and, on the other hand, the consolidation of a framework for more loosely-coupled and more functionally targeted institutional cooperation.

The result has been a series of in part contradictory developments, which we analyze in more detail elsewhere (cf. Fricke and Gualini 2014, 2015): - recourse to forms of functional-variable ad-hoc cooperation has defined a ‘variable geometry’ of metropolitan policy spaces; - symbolic reference to a unitary ‘capital region’ has de facto led to a recentralization of metropolitan discourse, particularly through the dominance of an economic development orientation placing an increasing emphasis on the central city of Berlin, with the effect of a prevailing identification of Berlin as ‘metropolis’ especially in the policies launched by public actors of the Land Berlin; - and finally, joint policy and governance efforts in the ‘capital region’ have been significantly restricted to ‘strategic’ economic development policy.

In this paper, in order to understand how this double movement has backed a reorientation of public- private relationships in metropolitan development policy, we focus primarily on the main changes introduced in the rationale of economic policies in the 2000s.

2. Changes in the rationale of economic development policies in the Berlin metropolitan region

2.1. A ‘neo-regionalist’ turn in Brandenburg’s regional policy: the ‘growth-centers’ approach

In 2004, the state Brandenburg – under a newly elected center-left ‘great coalition’ government – reformed its regional policy adopting a more territorially targeted economic development orientation and public resource allocation. Under the motto ‘strengthening strengths – fostering growth’ (Stärken stärken – Wachstum fördern), the overall principle was to support the economically strong locations of Brandenburg in order to develop the economic potential of the region.

The reform generated much political and scholarly attention, as representing an epochal shift in the welfarist-redistributive principles traditionally ruling statutory regional policy (cf. Murray and Neill 2011). The growth poles strategy followed a cross-sectoral integrated approach compatible with the concept of central places applied in German regional planning. Yet, its emphasis on economic competitiveness affected the spatial pattern of public resources distribution it traditionally pursued, symbolizing a change of paradigms in formerly rather dispersed regional development strategies (cf. Dybe and Lange 2009). The new policy also constituted a break with the tradition of the joint federal-state regional development scheme Gemeinschaftsaufgabe ‘Verbesserung der regionalen Wirtschaftsstruktur‘ (GA) established in the late 1960s. Its operating principles had been increasingly criticized for lacking an effective regional development strategy and for promoting regional arenas for cooperation. The shift in Brandenburg’s regional policy approach is thus in line with trends towards a new-regionalist economic development policy being experimented since the mid-1990s in several German Länder (e.g. Benz, Kilper and Fürst 1999; Gualini 2004).

The new policy was a reaction on the increasing economic peripherization of large parts of the Brandenburg territory, contrasted with the relative dynamics of the Berlin area and with its potential for integration with areas of regional specialization. The new policy objectives of ‘strengthening strengths’ implied moving away from a redistributive, welfare-oriented approach of territorial equalization.(an issue much discussed in the literature: e.g. Bürkner 2006, Matthiesen 2006, Ribhegge 2006). The principle of ‘decentralized concentration’ which framed this approach – largely a legacy of the growth-

Gualini and Fricke – RC21 Conference Urbino 2015 session G5: Governing Metropolitan Cities 8 pole economic diffusion model dominating traditional regional policy approaches – was a ‘metropolitan project’ in as far as it pursued a spatial concept of territorial development at the metropolitan scale, based on the (hierarchically conceived) interdependencies between Berlin and the polycentric urban structure – the ‘urban crown’ (Städtekranz) – of the inner Berlin agglomeration areas. This structure however extended as far as to cover a whole range of peripheral categories of centers, becoming almost coincident with the geographical structure of central places. Thus, developmental principles of economic and functional integration tended to overlap with welfarist principles of territorial equalization. This was increasingly perceived as hampering a more strategic and performance- oriented development policy providing spatial and functional incentives for branch-based specialization. In addition, statutory regional planning – traditionally framed along similar principles – had little substantial influence on development policy.

The new policy introduced a shift towards promoting economic potentials and development-oriented cooperation at the micro-regional level (cf. Diller 2002; Müller 2004; Zimmermann 2006). The main principles of the reform were twofold, i.e. economic and spatial: - economic development policy targeted towards enhancing branch-related development: the units of reference for policy are identified by the Ministry of Economy and defined as 16 branch-based ‘competence fields’ and 67 branch-related locations (both based on a catalogue of actual or potential performance criteria and with a focus on SMEs); - spatial focus on 15 ‘regional growth centers’ (Regionale Wachstumskerne) for the purpose of cluster-building of branch-related potentials and for effective integrated allocation of funding resources.

Figure 1: The model of ‘decentralized concentration’ in Brandenburg regional policy until 2005 Source: www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de

The policy provided an organizational infrastructure based on a central steering office (the Steuerungsgruppe Regionale Wachstumskerne) in the Gemeinsame Landesplanungsabteilung and on decentralized regional offices (Koordinationsstelle Regionaler Wachstumskern) in charge of coordinating interactions and activities involved in preparing integrated strategic development schemes at the micro-regional level.

The new policy thus pursued a critical mass for strategic development and innovative branch orientation, but also new principles of decentralized and cooperative regional governance of development policy through integrated strategies and projects for targeted spatial units. On the one hand, it represented a policy approach strongly led by governmental actors, mainly at the state and municipal level (Fürst 2003a), with ‘region’ as an ad-hoc construct aimed at involving economic actors in the process of defining and implementing spatially-targeted development strategies. On the other hand, the centrality of a cluster development approach, targeting key industries and branches in their spaces of complementarity and interdependency in order to foster their regional specialization

Gualini and Fricke – RC21 Conference Urbino 2015 session G5: Governing Metropolitan Cities 9 potential, introduced both a competitive and a strategic integration principle, since economic and geographical criteria for designation were combined with requirements for integrated-strategic planning to be complied with in each regional growth center.

The principle of ‘growth centers’ was soon adopted as a ruling principle of Berlin-Brandenburg cooperation in spatial planning. In 2006, an informal joint development strategy or Leitbild (Gemeinsame Landesplanungsabteilung der Länder Berlin und Brandenburg 2006) extended of the paradigm shift to the ‘capital region’ in laying the foundation for the formal joint spatial development program and plans, the Landesentwicklungsprogramm adopted in 2007 (Gemeinsame Landesplanungsabteilung 2008) and the Landesentwicklungsplan adopted in 2009 (Gemeinsame Landesplanungsabteilung 2009). Concentration of resources is directed towards the ‘qualitative’ development of growth centers, with emphasis on city-regional relationships in the Berlin-Potsdam fringe area. The logical continuation and specification of this redefined spatial logic is expressed by the ‘innovation strategy’ jointly adopted in the early 2010s.

Figure 2: ‘Regional growth centers’ in Brandenburg since 2005 Source: Land Brandenburg 2010. Available at: http://www.stk.brandenburg.de/sixcms/detail.php/bb1.c.323771.de

2.2. The policy of metropolitan cluster development: Berlin-Brandenburg’s ‘Joint Innovation Strategy’

In 2011, the governments of the Länder Berlin and Brandenburg launched a joint innovation strategy (Gemeinsame Innovationsstrategie der Länder Berlin und Brandenburg - innoBB), aimed at providing ‘an extended policy framework for development of the Hauptstadtregion reaching beyond boundaries of the Länder towards constituting an internationally competitive innovation space’ (Land Brandenburg and Land Berlin 2011). InnoBB, originated formally as a cooperative effort of the two Länder governments, represents a confluence of policy approaches developed in both the Länder Berlin and Brandenburg since the mid-2000s, notably the Kohärente Innovationsstrategie des Landes Berlin and the Landesinnovationskonzept Brandenburg.

The joint Berlin-Brandenburg ‘innovation strategy’ is a logical extension to the level of institutional inter-state cooperation of the ‘growth centers’ policy introduced in Brandenburg in 2005 and adopted in joint Berlin-Brandenburg spatial planning in 2007-8. It reflects the high level of EU and joint federal- state resources for regional development flowing from into R&D and innovation activities in the ‘capital region’ and the promotion of strategies and organizational infrastructures for regional cooperation around economic clusters (e.g. BMBF 2012).

The policy is significant in our perspective for two main reasons: - it has established the concept of economic cluster development as the core of joint metropolitan policy efforts in Berlin-Brandenburg:

Gualini and Fricke – RC21 Conference Urbino 2015 session G5: Governing Metropolitan Cities 10

- it has established procedures and arenas for direct influence on policy agendas by economic interests. Both aspects affect conceptions of metropolitan ‘policy spaces’ and are analyzed in the following.

‘Cluster development’ as central metropolitan policy concept

Formally, the Länder governments’ decision to address a joint economic promotion policy dates back to January 2005, followed by a preliminary analysis of potentials for innovation-oriented synergies between the economies of the two Länder conducted by their respective innovation agencies TSP and ZAB (Ministerium für Wirtschaft 2006: 10). The analysis resulted in the identification of a series of ‘fields of competence’ (Kompetenzfelder) – medical technology, biotechnology, media and ICT, optics, aviation and space technology, rail systems technology, automotive technology, logistics, water treatment – which, with the exception of water treatment and with the later addition of energy – all were in some form included in the InnoBB.

An innovation summit in 2007, during which a formal cooperation agreement was signed, marked the formal beginning of development of a joint strategy (cf. SenWiTechFrau Pressemitteilung 05.12.2007), based on the selection of five ‘fields of competence’ to form the focus of the joint policy: - biotechnology / medicine / pharmaceutics (later called: health economy) - media / ICT - transportation systems technology (now called: transportation, mobility and logistics) - optical technology - energy technology (cf. TSB et al. 2008, S. 6; SenWiTechFrau, Pressemitteilung 05.12.2007)

The definition of the policy presents some significant path-dependencies from the policies of the two Länder, in particular with regard to the definition of the ‘fields of competence’ for innovation policy later to become the foundation for the establishment of clusters. A preliminary document by the Land Berlin, the Kohärente Innovationsstrategie of 2005, identified five ‘fields of competence’ (Kompetenzfelder) for innovation policy – in a manner almost identical to the later innoBB, with the exception of the absence of the energy sector. Meanwhile, as we have seen, Brandenburg’s ministry of the economy was similarly developing a catalogue of ‘fields of competence’ (MfW 2006: 14ff.): biotechnology, medical technology, ICT, traffic systems technology, optics (cf. SenWiTechFrau Pressemitteilung 02.11.2005).

These observations highlight a double movement. On the one hand, the development of a joint policy framework appears as the result of an additive procedure taking stock of previous policy approaches as well as building upon recommendations advanced by the survey conducted in 2005. On the other hand, it is likely that the governmental agreement may have formally acknowledged the outcomes of understandings and initiatives that had been more informally defined by actors involved in specific economic networks – thus formalizing the performative orientation and capacity emerging from within the very ‘fields of competence’ or clusters allegedly object of the policy. Significantly, the health economy cluster represented a forerunner and in way a model for cluster development, having been quasi-institutionalized and provided with an own master plan since 2007, long before the final InnoBB policy document. In this respect, the already advanced master plan for a ‘health region Berlin- Brandenburg’ may have played the role of a policy model, providing a framework to be adopted in the following in the remainder ‘fields of competence’

‘Cluster development: actors, arenas and decision-making procedures

The hypothesis of a direct influence of economic sectors – and in particular of key representatives thereof – would require more in-depth analysis of informal arenas and interactions, but is supported by an analysis of the policy process. Next to a formal intergovernmental track, the policy has in fact developed important cluster-specific arenas for a rather informal but systematic involvement of economic interests and expertise.

Formal policy development was the responsibility of a dedicated working committee (Arbeitskreis gemeinsame Innovationsstrategie) supervised by a steering body headed by the state secretaries for the economy and for science and technology of Berlin and Brandenburg. The Arbeitskreis comprised the respective ministries of the Länder (Economy and European Affairs, Science Research and

Gualini and Fricke – RC21 Conference Urbino 2015 session G5: Governing Metropolitan Cities 11

Culture, Land Brandenburg; Economy Technology and Women, Education Science and Research, Berlin). In the course of the process, it also increasingly involved the twin chambers of commerce (IHK Berlin, IHK Brandenburg) and investment banks (Investitionsbank Berlin, Investitionsbank Brandenburg) as well as – even if informally – the twin innovation agencies ZukunftsAgentur Brandenburg GmbH and TSB Innovationsagentur GmbH (today part of Berlin Partner GmbH) (cf. Frese 2013), as participants of the Innovationsspitzengespräche held since 2007) (cf. SenWiTechFrau Pressemitteilung 05.12.2007)

Apparently, this delineates a rather traditional approach providing an intergovernmental framework for structured neo-corporatist interest representation. The policy development process, however, also involved significant elements of delegation to economic actors – through the structure of competence centers – as well as of direct involvement in agenda setting – through the establishment of deliberation arenas open to actors from the economy and scientific research.

With the presentation of a 2010 draft document by the Arbeitskreis, the policy approach of InnoBB made two significant turns.

First, the ‘cluster’ concept was introduced with the explicit aim of addressing a process of institutionalisation of ‘fields of competence’ in the spatial-functional and operational-organizational form of economic clusters. This followed up on provisions from the 2007 agreement, which had defined a structure of competence centers for the steering and coordination of each field identified (called Zukunftsfeldkoordinatoren), and which had been specified in a series of yearly ‘innovation summits’ (Innovationsgipfel) held between 2008 and 2010 under the coordination of ZAB and TSP. Accordingly, after joint formal adoption of the policy in 2011, the rather exploratory role of ‘innovation summits’ was gradually taken over by procedures of specification and operationalization of each single ‘field of competence’ into a cluster format.

Second, a series of conferences called ‘future dialogues’ or ‘cluster dialogues’ were initiated around 2010 (cf. Landtag Brandenburg, Kleine Anfrage 1001: 3). These took over from the previous more governmentally framed summits, and promoted the involvement of policy-specific networks of actors from the economy and from scientific research and technology transfer in view of the development and ‘institutionalisation’ of specific clusters and of their strategies and projects (cf. Landtag Brandenburg 2011: 5ff.). The dialogues become the main official arena for the involvement of private actors spanning Länder boundaries, to which also individual firms – and not only corporate representatives – directly participated.

‘Cluster development’ and metropolitan scale(s)

The approach of InnoBB presents features of great relevance for policy developments in the Berlin- Brandenburg metropolitan region – in particular, as far as conceptions of metropolitan policy are concerned. InnoBB formally pursues the institutionalization of a framework for a joint interstate innovation policy, realizing a harmonization of their respective innovation and economic development promotion schemes. It operates in a performance-oriented mode that expresses the aim of constituting the Haupstadtregion as an integrated space for economic innovation. Expressive of this are formal mission statements such as: “establishing goals and framework conditions for a successful active shaping of innovation policy in both Länder, in order to fully exploit the innovation potentials and synergies of the whole region in the coming years” (Brandenburg/Berlin 2011: 4).

The policy aims at realizing a critical mass of functional and spatial integration in strategic technology- and innovation-based economic value chains. For this purpose, it addresses the usual repertory of measures aimed at realizing durable conditions for regional competiveness through synergetic innovation capacity, locational profiling and marketing, strategic investment prioritization and integrated resource allocation (Brandenburg/Berlin 2011: 4f.). The adoption of the cluster concept serves as an inscription device for this purpose. Its extension to the level of the Haupstadtregion, however, represents the institutionalization of the demise of territorial equalization approaches already introduced by Brandenburg’s regional policy reform: “A joint innovation policy is not meant to lead to equalization in regional policy. It should rather acknowledge differences in structural economic framework conditions as well as in regional strengths and devise according innovation policy instruments” (Berlin n.d.: 10).

Gualini and Fricke – RC21 Conference Urbino 2015 session G5: Governing Metropolitan Cities 12

As a logical consequence, clusters follow their specific functional, spatial and relational logic: “Clusters have specific profiles and functions according to the respectively specific structural economic framework conditions of the region considered. In addition, their development process may result being more ‘ripened’ according to their structure and to the degree of cooperation of their actors” (Brandenburg/Berlin 2011: 7)

In functional, spatial and relational terms, a cluster policy builds therefore on patterns of interdependencies which are, as such, inherently selective. So how does this selectivity operate within InnoBB? In the first place, a strategic-relational selectivity is expressed by the interplay of economic interests and by the definition of the functional scope in constituting clusters as policy objects. This aspect is obviously related to patterns of involvement of actors. Since the adoption of InnoBB, the definition of its strategic orientation – as well as the definition of its scope and scale – has been delegated almost completely to the development of cluster networks and cluster master plans as well as of their priority or ‘flagship’ projects. In addition, the development of clusters and the definition of master plans are seen as inherently participatory processes requiring the involvement and integration of relevant private and public actors (Brandenburg/Berlin 2011: 16). Patterns of influence are therefore highly dependent on the selective capacity of actors to exert in decentralized and largely informal policy arenas. An example of the outcomes of this can be detected in the management structures of clusters. While the management agencies of the clusters are headed – in a sort of institutional division of labor – by representatives of the major marketing and innovation agencies of Berlin and Brandenburg (notably Berlin Partner, TSB and ZAB), the corporate imprinting of clusters is reflected in their original management structure: for instance, the optics and the health economy clusters where originally managed by two publicly supported corporate associations, respectively OpTecBB e.V. and BioTOP (the latter still currently providing the ‘fields of competence manager’). Behind this formal institutional structure, it is clear that the public-private cooperation model of InnoBB clusters largely delegates the orientation and contents of policies to the competence- and stake-holders in the respective firm networks.

Figure 3: Innovation strategy Berlin-Brandenburg InnoBB: Cluster Health Economy Source: Berlin Partner Gmbh, ZAB Gmbh (2013: 12-13)

Gualini and Fricke – RC21 Conference Urbino 2015 session G5: Governing Metropolitan Cities 13

In the second place, cluster policies express a form of scalar selectivity. In principle, a ‘cluster’ is an open aggregation of economic actors whose field of activity can be thematically and functionally related to the strategic priorities identified by the policy within Berlin and Brandenburg. In this respect, it does not involve formal membership nor is it formally limited to specific economic networks characteristic of a cluster. Moreover, clusters are defined thematically rather than tied to fixed spatial scales. In the logic of InnoBB, policy outputs are therefore determinants of the scalar features of each individual cluster. Nevertheless, criteria for cluster formation – and for achieving ‘critical mass’ as its strategic precondition (cf. Brandenburg/Berlin 2011: 6) – are a complex interplay of functional integration and spatial proximity. As a consequence, the scalar definition of clusters – and, by implication, of their specific interstate and cross-border scalarity – also depends on policy inputs such as the strategic and thematic definition of policy measures in and for a cluster – which, on its part, is a function of the involvement of actors and their interests in constituting clusters.

Scale becomes therefore an implicit dimension of the strategic-relational definition of clusters as policy objects – or, in other words, clusters co-constitute scale. To paraphrase Latour (2005: 34), we could say in this respect that scale, as a contingent socio-social formation, is “not the object of an ostensive definition […] but only of a performative definition”. The same can be said for the policy spaces clusters define. Moreover, the spatiality defined by this policy approach is inherently multi-scalar.

Accordingly, within the institutional and policy approach of InnoBB, we see two scalar logics co- existing and operating in an implicit state of tension. On the one hand, the Haupstadtregion on its whole is established as a space of cooperation according to an institutional scalar logic. This territorially-framed understanding of the scale of innovation policy is reinforced by the requirement for cluster structures and projects to be mandatorily interstate and cross-border in nature (Brandenburg/Berlin 2011: 17). On the other hand, as a principle of functional-spatial economic integration, and according to the strategic-relational patterns of involvement and performance of actors, clusters obviously develop their own scalar features. They constitute a variable geometry of regional cooperation which results in an emergent, inherently multi-scalar pattern of policy spaces. In the interplay between these two scalar logics, it appears likely that primarily Berlin-based economic actors are able to act and to select – according to their specific thematic ‘fields of competence’ – economic actors dispersed in the Brandenburg territory for targeted cooperation, be it in defining the clusters’ master-plans or their flagship projects.

While these observations may be relatively trivial when ‘scale’ is considered from a merely economic geography perspective, it becomes significant when we consider how policy scales are being re- constituted – in a critical perspective of research on the ‘political economy of scale’ – along the development of practices and discourses concerning the metropolitan region.

‘Cluster development’: interim conclusions

The cluster approach pursued by the joint innovation policy InnoBB realizes a conceptually specific extension of economic promotion policy to the whole of the Haupstadtregion. It establishes the Haupstadtregion as a space of cooperation; meanwhile, however, it entrusts the definition of the clusters in the Haupstadtregion to the public – universities, research centers, economic promotion agencies – and private actors – firms, corporate associations – involved in each specific cluster.

InnoBB represents a stage in development of metropolitan policy in Berlin-Brandenburg which reduces the question of a joint metropolitan policy institutionally to the issue of a joint innovation-oriented economic policy. On the one hand, it formally reproduces an institutional logic of territoriality while bypassing the stalemate in jurisdictional reforms. On the other hand, it opens to the constitution of policy spaces with different scalar features, depending on the definition and selection of clusters and by their performative actualization.

This duality is well expressed by a contradiction. InnoBB has gained a central role in metropolitan- wide economic development policy. This is highlighted by the fact that reference to metropolitan issues in Berlin’s strategic industrial and economic development policy documents is almost exclusively made by reference to InnoBB. Meanwhile, however, metropolitan cooperation has been basically restricted concentrated to cluster policy tasks and, where the policy interface of InnoBB does not apply, very little discourse and practice of cooperation at a metropolitan scale appears to take

Gualini and Fricke – RC21 Conference Urbino 2015 session G5: Governing Metropolitan Cities 14 place. Accordingly, the Länder Berlin and Brandenburg respectively pursue their own distinct approaches to industrial policy, as presented in the policy documents Masterplan Industriestadt (Berlin) Aktionsplan Pro-Industrie (Brandenburg).

3. The construction of a policy-driven system of multi-actor relationships

Based on the previous analyses of spatial and economic policies, we advance the thesis that shifting understandings of metropolitan space represent a trend towards a policy-driven construction of scale, intended as an ‘implicit project’ and as a relational outcome of the discursive practices and interactions of actors involved in shaping and enacting these policies.

In the following section, we present a preliminary analysis of the multi-actors relationships related to practices of the construction of metropolitan space. This will need to be complemented by a more in- depth analysis of the discursive constructs that support alternative views of metropolitan space and which frame the scalar reference of policies (cf. Fricke and Gualini 2014, 2015).

First, we look at the participating actors and their territorial interests, drawing mostly on statements concerning a possible merger of Berlin and Brandenburg. Second, we give some examples of multi- actor arenas related to policy schemes and question their metropolitan orientation.

Public, quasi-private as well as private actors all participate in economic and spatial policies. While public actors from various governmental levels remain important, we identify a number of private or quasi-private actors, such as business location agencies, influencing or taking part in the making of metropolitan policies. The engagement of organizations representing private interests, such as branch associations or the chamber of commerce, reflect the corporatist structure of the German system of interest representation. However, interest representations of employees and trade unions remain rather reserved vis-à-vis territorial politics. Besides, we observed some singular initiatives from private associations or single enterprises campaigning for a territorial reform or economic growth.

In Germany, it is common that enterprises organize their interest representation in voluntary associations. For Berlin-Brandenburg, the umbrella organization UVB (Vereinigung der Unternehmensverbände in Berlin und Brandenburg e.V.) integrates several branch associations on a meso-level. Since it originated from a merger of the business associations from West Berlin, East Berlin and Brandenburg shortly after the re-unification, the UVB has been in favor of a merger of the two states (Märkische Allgemeine 2010). Some branch associations engage in specific sectorial policies, for instance, the association of the construction industry (Bauindustrieverband Berlin- Brandenburg e.V.) supporting the strategy for the industrial sectors.

Besides voluntary interest representations, enterprises are obliged to be member of the local chamber of commerce. The Berlin chamber of commerce IHK (Industrie- und Handelskammer zu Berlin) regularly gives statements or recommendations on economic or urban policies. Concerning the issue of the merger of the two states, the IHK has published a supporting study (IHK Berlin ca. 2007 n.d.), and stated that despite the current stalemate, a merger is preferred by most of Berlin and Brandenburg’s enterprises. It is notable that, in a strategic position paper by the same Berlin chamber of commerce (cf. IHK Berlin n.d.: 28ff.), a further development of joint economic promotion policy was envisioned which avoided a Länder merger and which almost exactly anticipated the features of InnoBB: as a cooperation without reform of economic policy competences, based on a joint framework for knowledge-exchange and on market-driven modes of governance and coordination. This seems to confirm our hypothesis that reference to an integrated territorial metropolitan entity has increasingly become more of a symbolic frame and less influential on actually implemented policy concepts.

Another private association influencing the metropolitan discourse is the ‘initiative active capital region’ (Initiative Aktive Hauptstadtregion, Stiftung Zukunft Berlin 2014). The initiative is a rather exceptional and elitist actor with the goal to influence territorial policies and the public opinion in favor of a merger of the two states. It assembles a number of academics and persons of public interest and organizes events or published policy recommendations.

So, what policy arenas do these actors engage in? Based on the previous analysis, we identify policy- specific arenas of metropolitan discourse and practices. The arena of planning policy resembles more

Gualini and Fricke – RC21 Conference Urbino 2015 session G5: Governing Metropolitan Cities 15 of a multi-level system based on inter-governmental cooperation and clear-cut administratively defined, territorial scopes. The arena of economic policies is a more flexible system of multi-actor relationships, with changing alliances over time and producing policies with, for instance, a specific, localized spatial scope.

Especially the policy arenas related to the promotion of economic locations give insight into the changing scopes and scales of policies. One arena of economic policy in the metropolitan region is guided by the states’ public administration, actively involving and incorporating local business interest representatives into the policy process. Official practices include, for instance, a steering circle on industrial policy, which was founded in 2010 by the major of Berlin and representatives of businesses and trade unions, forming a ‘pact for the future’ of Berlin’s industry (Zukunftspakt) (Land Berlin and Senatskanzlei Berlin 2014). Another example of public initiatives involving private actors are practices related to the local growth initiative. 2007-2012, the city state administration of Berlin organized yearly economic forums (Berliner Wirtschaftskonferenz), focusing on varying policy issues such as innovation or energy (Senatsverwaltung für Wirtschaft, Technologie und Forschung 2012).

In sum, if we contrast, on the one hand, the spatial and economic policies of the Land Berlin, which we have interpreted as an expression of the ‘recentralization’ of metropolitan policy and of a strengthened focus on Berlin – like, paradigmatically, the STEPL Industrie – with, on the other hand, the joint policy for innovation of Berlin-Brandenburg, which we have interpreted as an expression of a policy-driven construction of metropolitan space, we recognize the following pattern: in the former, we a have prevailingly a strong but traditional neo-corporatist pattern of institutional or associational involvement of aggregate interest representations from the economy, whereas policy schemes like InnoBB, while also providing structured arenas for deliberation on a neo-corporatist representative basis, are much more inclined to informally promoting the direct involvement of firms as bearers of functional expertise and management skills required by the formation of clusters as organizational units and as action frames.

Conclusions: Governing the metropolis through ‘implicit’ scalar projects

In this paper, we have argued about a double movement in metropolitan policy for the Berlin region in the last decade: on the one hand, the decline of the hypothesis of metropolitan rescaling as an ‘explicit’ political-institutional project; on the other hand, the development of loosely-coupled, functionally targeted forms of institutionally supported cooperation. As we have noted, one of the results of this has been a significant shift in focus of joint metropolitan governance efforts towards economic development policy.

As a result, the policy construct called ‘Berlin capital region’ consist in fact of the coexistence of two logics – a coexistence which, as we have seen, leaves room for different and partially competing interpretations. At the institutional level, a joint framework for economic policy for the ‘capital region’ provides a formal context for negotiating priorities among governmental actors and the interests of which they convey representation. At the strategic-operational level, the ‘capital region’ is defined in turn by networks of functional interdependencies, primarily characterized by their inter-sectorial logic, and interspersed in the territory of the cooperating Länder.

Does this mean that the Berlin region lacks a state ‘scalar project’ concerning metropolitan space? At first sight, this appears as an appropriate conclusion – but only if we consider state spatiality ‘in the narrow sense’.

The thesis advanced in this paper is that, while it is difficult to recognize any ‘explicit’ scalar project in it, the shift represented by the dominance of economic policy in joint metropolitan governance practices carries implicit but significant scalar consequences.

The joint Berlin-Brandenburg innovation strategy is ‘spatial’ in as far as ‘cluster’ is an economic geography concept which conveys an understanding of relational patterns of economic activities in space. In fact, documents concerning the policy scheme do not particularly point at the spatial dimension of industrial clustering, apart from the occasional but obviously communicatively effective – but primarily ‘quantitative’ – representation of geographical locations. Accordingly, its scalar representations of metropolitan space are implicit at best. Nevertheless, its scalar implications are

Gualini and Fricke – RC21 Conference Urbino 2015 session G5: Governing Metropolitan Cities 16 significant. This becomes clear at a close analysis of specific patterns of geographical distribution of activities relevant for cluster development which, on the one hand, highlight the strategic integration with industrial locations in Berlin and, on the other hand, define patterns of spatial distribution of the policy investments involved which bear implicit but substantive scalar effects.

We can therefore identify scalar consequences, in first instance, in the continuation of a trend away from territorially-based towards location-based Standort-oriented development, and, in second instance, in the constitution of policy discourses and practices which define patterns of spatiality largely in dependence of functional-organizational features, economic interests, and performative criteria of corporate actors.

The latter aspect is lead us back to the question of ‘who governs’ the Berlin metropolitan region. Analyzing ‘implicit’ scalar projects is particularly relevant in as far as it reveals patterns of influence exerted by key economic players in defining scope and scale of economic policies. These, as we have noted, appear to have become much more direct as well as more strategically selective in the framework of the economic development shift represented by the joint Berlin-Brandenburg innovation policy. In principle, in light of the policy developments we have analyzed, we could argue that ‘collaborative’ policies oriented towards creating ‘spaces of competitiveness’ at the metropolitan scale are most attuned to realize a consistency between ‘spaces of dependence’ and ‘spaces of engagement’ for economic actors (cf. Cox 1998; Lefèvre 2011), and therefore also to realize new opportunities for their involvement in shaping spatial and economic policy (a finding which per se is, of course, not new to critical research on the ‘new regionalism’).

The ‘spaces of competitiveness’ that are thus constituted represent a ‘metropolitan project’, therefore, in an implicit and relational, but nonetheless important way: they represent a policy-driven rescaling of development discourses and practices which is distinctive, on the one hand, relative to previous concepts of approaches to metropolitan cooperation and, on the other hand, relative to the specific constellations of actors and interests involved.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge Martin Rohde from ISR - TU Berlin for his significant contribution to the analysis of the policies discussed in this paper.

References [to be double-checked]

Note: all translations from German sources in the paper are by the authors

Arndt, M. (2006) 'Spielregeln einer "wilden Länderehe" - Auch eine "wilde Ehe" kann funktionieren’, in Zehn Jahre Gemeinsame Landesplanung Berlin-Brandenburg: Leitbilder, Masterpläne und Visionen, Erkner: 7. Benz, A., Benz, A. and König, K. (1995) ‘Planung und Verwaltung in der Region Berlin/Brandenburg: Problemanalyse und Lösungsvorschläge’, in Benz, A. (ed.) Der Aufbau einer Region: Planung und Verwaltung im Verdichtungsraum Berlin/Brandenburg. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 37–94. Benz, A., Fürst, D. and Kilper, H. (1999) Regionalisierung: Opladen: Leske+Budrich. Berlin Partner GmbH (2011) 2008-2011 Tätigkeitsbericht be Berlin: be Berlin in Zahlen. Berlin Partner Gmbh, ZukunftsAgentur Brandenburg Gmbh (2013) Life Sciences in der Hauptstadtregion Berlin-Brandenburg. Available at: www.zab-brandenburg.de. Blatter, J. (2005) ‘Metropolitan Governance in Deutschland: Normative, utilitaristische, kommunikative und dramaturgische Steuerungsansätze’. Swiss Political Science Review 11(1): 119–155. BMBF (2012) Deutschlands Spitzencluster – Invented in Germany. Berlin: BMBF. Available at: www.bmbf.de/pub/deutschlands_spitzencluster_de_en.pdf. Brenner, N. (2000), ‘Building ‘Euro-Regions’: Locational Politics and the Political Geography of Neliberalism in Post-unification Germany’, European Urban and Regional Studies, 7.4, 319-45. Brenner, N. (2003), ‘Standortpolitik, State Rescaling and the New Metropolitan Governance in Western Europe’, DISP, 152, 15-25 Brenner, N. (2004), New State Spaces: Urban Governance and the Rescaling of Statehood, Oxford University Press, Oxford

Gualini and Fricke – RC21 Conference Urbino 2015 session G5: Governing Metropolitan Cities 17

Brenner, N., Jessop, B, Jones, M. and MacLeod, G. (eds) (2003), State/Space, Blackwell, Oxford Bürkner, H.J. (2006) ‘Berlin-Brandenburg: Steuerungsprobleme einer fragmentierten Metropolregion’, in: Kleger, H., Lomsky, A. and Wegt, F. (eds) Von der Agglomeration zur Stadtregion. Berlin: 241- 264. Colomb, C. (2012) Staging the New Berlin: Place marketing and the politics of urban reinvention post- 1989. London/New York: Routledge. Cox, K. (1998), ‘Spaces of dependence, spaces of engagement and the politics of scale or : looking for local politics’, Political Geography, 17, 1, 1-23. Diller, C. (2002) Zwischen Netzwerk und Institution. Eine Bilanz regionaler Kooperationen in Deutschland. Opladen: Leske+Budrich. Dybe, G. and Lange Hans-Georg (2009) ' Neue Ansätze der Raumentwicklungs- und Förderpolitik: Dargestellt an den Beispielen Brandenburg und Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, in Eich-Born, M. (ed.) Räumlich differenzierte Entwicklungs- und Förderstrategien für Nordostdeutschland. ARL, Hannover. Frese, A. (2013) ‘Wirtschaftsförderung fusioniert mit Technologiestiftung’. Tagesspiegel, 17.06.2013. Fricke, C. and Gualini, E. (2014) ‘Berlin as (implicit) metropolitan space: contradictions of the institutional construction of scale’. Paper presented at the EURA / UAA City Futures Conference 2014 Cities as strategic places and players in a globalized world, Paris, 18-20 June 2014. Fricke, C. and Gualini, E. (2015), Outline of a Comparative Study on The Discursive Construction of Metropolitan Scale, paper presented at the IMRC Berlin Meeting, Berlin, June 26-27, 2015 Fürst, D. (2005) ‘Metropolitan Governance in Germany’, in Heinelt, H. and Kübler, D. (eds.) Metropolitan governance: Capacity, democracy and the dynamics of place. Routledge, London, New York: 151–168. Gemeinsame Landesplanungsabteilung (2009) Landesentwicklungsplan Berlin-Brandenburg (LEP B- B). Gemeinsame Landesplanungsabteilung der Länder Berlin und Brandenburg (2006) Leitbild: Hauptstadtregion Berlin-Brandenburg, Potsdam. González, T., Jähnke, P. and Mahnken, G. (2009) ‘”Ich mache jetzt hier einen Wachstumskern”: Raumbindungsstrategien, Wissensmilieus und räumliche Profilbildungen in Berlin-Brandenburg’ (IRS-Fallstudie 2). disP - The Planning Review 45, 178, 22–36. Gualini, E. (2004) ‘Regionalization as “Experimental Regionalism”: The Rescaling of Territorial Policy- making in Germany’. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 28, 2, 329-353. Häußermann, H. (2003) 'Berlin’, in Salet, W., Thornley, A. and Kreukels, A. (eds.) Metropolitan governance and spatial planning: comparative case studies of European city regions: 113–124. Hauswirth, I., Herrschel, T. and Newman, P. (2003) 'Incentives and Disincentives to City-Regional Cooperation in the Berlin-Brandenburg Conurbation’. European Urban and Regional Studies 10, 2, 119–134. Holtmann, C. (2005) Die Modelle ländergrenzenüberschreitender Zusammenarbeit in den Metropolregionen Berlin-Brandenburg und Hamburg im Vergleich: Schlussfolgerungen für eine Reorganisation der gemeinsamen Landesplanung in der Metropolregion Hamburg, 11, 1. Aufl. Nomos, Baden-Baden. IHK Berlin (o.J.) Zum zukünftigen Verhältnis der Länder Berlin und Brandenburg. Strategiepapier. Industrie- und Handelskammer Berlin (ca. 2007 [ohne Jahr]) Zum zukünftigen Verhältnis der Länder Berlin und Brandenburg. Available at: http://www.ihk- berlin.de/linkableblob/bihk24/standortpolitik/downloads/_download/818132/.12./data/Strategiepapi er_Berlin_Brandenburg-data.pdf. Accessed 4/11/2014. Industrie und Handelskammer Berlin and Handwerkskammer Berlin (2013) Berliner Wirtschaft in Zahlen: Ausgabe 2013. InnoBB (2012) Cluster Verkehr, Mobilitat und Logistik. Available at: http://www.innobb.de/de/Cluster/Cluster-Verkehr-Mobilit%C3%A4t-und-Logistik. Jessop, B. (2002), The Future of the Capitalist State, Cambridge: Polity Press. Jessop, B. (2004), ‘Multilevel Governance and Multilevel Meta-governance’, in Multilevel Governance, eds. I. Bache and M. Flinders, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jessop, B. (2008), State Power: A Strategic-relational Approach, Cambridge: Polity Press. Jessop, B. (2009), 'From Governance via Governance Failure and from Multilevel Governance to Multiscalar Meta-Governance'. in B. Arts, A Langendijk and H. van Houtum (eds.), The Disoriented State: Shifts in Governmentality, Territoriality and Governance, Heidelberg: Springer Verlag, 79-98. Jessop, B., Brenner, N. and Jones, M. (2008), ‘Theorizing Sociospatial Relations’, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 26(3), 389-401.

Gualini and Fricke – RC21 Conference Urbino 2015 session G5: Governing Metropolitan Cities 18

Jones, M and Jessop, B. (2010), 'Thinking State/Space Incompossibly', Antipode: 41-42(5), 1119– 1149. Junghanns, Ulrich; Wanka, Johanna; Wolf, Harald; Zöllner, Jürgen (2009): Vereinbarung über das Zusammenwirken bei der Verbesserung des Wissens- und Technologietransfers der Hauptstadtregion. Kirnich, P. (2009) ‘Keiner für alle, jeder für sich: Berlin und Brandenburg gehen bei der Werbung um Investoren für die Hauptstadt-Region künftig zum Teil wieder getrennte Wege’. Berliner Zeitung, June 18. Available at: http://www.berliner-zeitung.de/archiv/neuer-krach-zwischen-berlin-und- brandenburg---gemeinsamestandort-. Accessed 11/30/2014. Kommunales Nachbarschaftsforum (KNF) (2007) ‘Stadt-Umland-Kooperation - Berlin und Nachbarn: Suburbanisierungsprozesse im kommunalen Nachbarschaftsraum. Planungszeitung’. Available at: http://www.kommunales-nachbarschaftsforum.de/imperia/md/content/bb- nachbarschaftsforum/gesamtraum/planungszeitung_2007.pdf. Accessed 4/18/2014. Krappweis, S. (2001) ‘Zehn Jahre gemeinsame Planung von Berlin und Brandenburg’. Raumforschung und Raumordnung 59(2-3): 216–227. Land Berlin (o.J.) Dritter Innovationsbericht des Landes Berlin. Berlin-Brandenburg - die Innovationsregion im Herzen Europas. Anlage zur Vorlage an das Abgeordnetenhaus. Hg. v. Land Berlin. Land Berlin and Senatskanzlei Berlin (2014) ‘Steuerungskreis Industriepolitik besucht den Wissenschafts- und Industriestandort Oberschöneweide’. Available at: http://www.berlin.de/rbmskzl/aktuelles/pressemitteilungen/2014/pressemitteilung.231037.php. Accessed 11/28/2014. Land Brandenburg and Land Berlin (2011) Gemeinsame Innovationsstrategie der Länder Berlin und Brandenburg (innoBB): The German Capital Region. Excellence in Innovation. beschlossen am 21. Juni 2011 vom Senat von Berlin und der Regierung des Landes Brandenburg. Land Brandenburg; Land Berlin (Hg.) (2011) Gemeinsame Innovationsstrategie der Länder Berlin und Brandenburg (innoBB). The German Capital Region. Excellence in Innovation. Beschlossen am 21. Juni 2011 vom Senat von Berlin und der Regierung des Landes Brandenburg. Lander Berlin und Brandenburg (2011) Gemeinsame Innovationsstrategie der Länder Berlin und Brandenburg (innoBB) beschlossen am 21. Juni 2011 vom Senat von Berlin und der Regierung des Landes Brandenburg. Available at: http://www.innobb.de/. Landtag Brandenburg (2011) Protokoll. 24. Sitzung des Ausschusses für Wirtschaft. P-AW 5/24. Hg. v. Landtag Brandenburg. Latour, B. (2005) Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lefèvre, C. (2011) The Involvement of Economic Actors in Urban Strategies in Europe, Paris: Sciences Po, Governance and Globalization Working Paper Series, 25. Mahnken, G. (2009) ‘Public Branding und Wissen: Zum Entstehungsprozess einer metropolitanen Raummarke am Fallbeispiel Berlin-Brandenburg’, in Matthiesen, U. and Mahnken, G. (eds.) Das Wissen der Städte. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden: 235–254. Märkische Allgemeine (2010) ' VERBÄNDE: Unternehmensverbände pochen auf Fusion: Festakt zum 60-jährigen Jubiläum / Schlagabtausch zwischen Wowereit und Platzeck. Märkische Allgemeine, September 14. Available at: http://www.maerkischeallgemeine.de. Accessed 4/11/2014. Matthiesen, U. (2006) ‘Von Krafträumen und Speckwürfeln. Ein Beitrag zur clusterorientierten Brandenburger Entwicklungspolitik‘, IRS-Aktuell 51-52: 14:15. Metzner, T. (2013) ‘Geheimtreffen zu Berlin und Brandenburg’. Tagesspiegel, November 01. Ministerium für Wirtschaft des Landes Brandenburg (2006) Landesinnovationskonzept Brandenburg 2006. Ministerium für Wirtschaft des Landes Brandenburg. Potsdam. Ministerium für Wirtschaft des Landes Brandenburg; Senatsverwaltung für Wirtschaft, Technologie und Frauen (03.11.2008) Meileinstein für gemeinsame Innovationsstrategie. Minister Junghanns und Senator Wolf stärken Wettbewerbsfähigkeit der Wirtschaft. Pressemitteilung Innovationsgipfel 2008. Ministerkonferenz für Raumordnung, Geschäftsstelle im Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung (BMVBS) (2006) Leitbilder und Handlungsstrategien für die Raumentwicklung in Deutschland, Berlin. MKRO Ministerkonferenz für Raumordnung (1995) Raumordnungspolitischer Handlungsrahmen. BMRBS: Bonn. Müller, B. (2004) ‘Neue Planungsformen im Prozess einer nachhaltigen Raumentwicklung unter veränderten Rahmenbedingungen’, in Müller, B., Löb, S. and Zimmermann, K. (eds) Steuerung und Planung im Wandel. Wiesbaden: 161-167.

Gualini and Fricke – RC21 Conference Urbino 2015 session G5: Governing Metropolitan Cities 19

Murray, M. R. and Neill, W. J. (2011) ‘Strategic Spatial Planning in Berlin-Brandenburg: A Requiem for Balanced Development?’ Planning Practice and Research 26(1): 107–121. Niedermayer, O. and Stöss, R. (2008) ‘Berlin-Brandenburg-BUS 2008: Die Haltung der Bevölkerung zur Fusion von Berlin und Brandenburg 2000 – 2008’. Handout für die Pressekonferenz am 10. Juli 2008‘. Available at: http://www.polsoz.fu- berlin.de/polwiss/forschung/systeme/empsoz/forschung/media/Fusion_08.pdf?1367710472. Accessed 3/27/2014. Perspektive Berlin-Brandenburg e.V. (2014) Homepage. http://www.perspektive-bb.de/. Presse- und Informationsamt des Landes Berlin (2013) Berlin heute. Broschüre zur Öffentlichkeitsarbeit. Ribhegge, H. (2006) ‘Stärken und Schwächen der Neuausrichtung der Wirtschaftsförderung inm Land Brandenburg’, Berliner Debatte Initial, 17(1-12): 156-166. Sauberzweig, D. and Schmidt-Eichstaedt, G. (1992) Gemeinsame Landes- und Regionalplanung für Berlin und Brandenburg: Die rechtlichen und organisatorischen Voraussetzungen einer gemeinsamen verbindlichen Landes- und Regionalplanung für Berlin und Brandenburg. Gutachten, Berlin. Schneider, F., Tag, J., Wolf, H., Junghanns, U. (2009) Vereinbarung zur Senatsverwaltung für Wirtschaft, Technologie und Frauen; Ministerium für Wirtschaft des Landes Brandenburg; Ministerium für Wissenschaft,Forschung und Kultur; Senatsverwaltung für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Forschung (02.12.2010) innoBB Wachstum durch Innovation. Brandenburg und Berlin vertiefen gemeinsame Innovationsstrategie. Pressemitteilung Innovationsgipfel 2010. Segebade, F. and Elsing, C. (2008) ‘Hauptstadtregion Berlin-Brandenburg, in Ludwig, J. (ed.) Metropolregionen in Deutschland: 11 Beispiele für Regional Governance. Nomos, Baden-Baden: 30–42. Senat Berlin (2007) Senatsbeschluss S 414/2007 vom 21. Mai 2007: Gesamtprojekt des Senats "Entwicklung einer Strategie zur Positionierung und Kommunikation des Standortes Berlin". Senatskanzlei Berlin and Staatskanzlei Brandenburg (2014) Fortschrittsbericht: über die Zusammenarbeit zwischen den Ländern Brandenburg und Berlin sowie die weitere Zusammenlegung von Behörden und Sonderbehörden. Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung (2004) Stadtentwicklungskonzept - Berlin 2020: Statusbericht und perspektivische Handlungsansätze, Berlin. Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung and Senatsverwaltung für Wirtschaft, Technologie und Frauen (2011) Stadtentwicklungsplan Industrie und Gewerbe: Entwicklungskonzept für den produktionsgrprägten Bereich, Berlin. Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt (2013) Stadtentwicklungskonzept Berlin 2030: Statusbericht. Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt (2014) Stadtentwicklungskonzept Berlin 2030: BerlinStrategie. http://stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/planen/stadtentwicklungskonzept/download/strategie/berlinstrate gie_2014_04_lang.pdf. Accessed 11/28/2014. Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung, Ministerium für Infrastruktur und Raumforschung and Gemeinsame Landesplanungsabteilung der Länder Berlin und Brandenburg (2008) Landesentwicklungsprogramm 2007: Hauptstadtregion Berlin-Brandenburg, Potsdam. Senatsverwaltung für Wirtschaft, Technologie und Forschung (2012) ' Berliner Wirtschaftskonferenz: Internetpräsenz und Themenübersicht 2007-2012. http://www.berliner- wirtschaftskonferenz.de/energieforum-2011/partner/. Accessed 11/28/2014. Senatsverwaltung für Wirtschaft, Technologie und Frauen (02.11.2005) Wie aus Wissen Arbeit wird - Masterpläne für Berlins Zukunft. Berlin. Presse- und Informationsamt des Landes Berlin. Senatsverwaltung für Wirtschaft, Technologie und Frauen (05.12.2007) Spitzengespräch von Minister Junghanns und Senator Wolf. Berlin und Brandenburg wollen gemeinsame Innovationsstrategie entwickeln. Berlin. Senatsverwaltung für Wirtschaft, Technologie und Frauen and Netzwerk Industriepolitik (2010) Masterplan Industriestadt 2010-2020: Industrie Stadt Berlin, Berlin. Stiftung Zukunft Berlin (2014) Initiative Aktive Hauptstadtregion Berlin-Brandenburg zur Verbesserung der Zusammenarbeit zwischen beiden Ländern: Ein Papier der Projektgruppe Aktive Hauptstadtregion Berlin-Brandenburg in Zusammenarbeit mit der Stiftung Zukunft Berlin. Available at: http://www.stiftungzukunftberlin.eu/sites/default/files/files/Initiative%20Aktive%20Hauptstadtregio n%20Berlin-Brandenburg_Konzept.pdf.

Gualini and Fricke – RC21 Conference Urbino 2015 session G5: Governing Metropolitan Cities 20

Tomenendal, M., Lange, H.R. (2014) Cluster-Entwicklung in einem dreifstufigen Modell: Das Fallbeispiel des Berlin-Brandenburger Energietechnik-Clusters. Berlin School of Economics and Law (HWR Berlin) (Working Papers of the Institute of Management Berlin, 79). Tripke, D. (2009) Sind die Länder Berlin und Brandenburg neugliederungsreif nach Art. 118a GG?: Der Weg zur Länderfusion unter Würdigung der verfassungsrechtlichen Voraussetzungen, der finanzpolitischen Rahmenbedingungen und der konkreten Neugliederungsbemühungen. Frank and Timme, Berlin. Tripke, D. (2009) Sind die Länder Berlin und Brandenburg neugliederungsreif nach Art. 118a GG? Der Weg zur Länderfusion unter Würdigung der verfassungsrechtlichen Voraussetzungen, der finanzpolitischen Rahmenbedingungen und der konkreten Neugliederungsbemühungen. Berlin: Frank & Timme (Potsdamer Rechtswissenschaftliche Reihe, 31). TSB Innovationsagentur Berlin GmbH (2009) Innovationsgipfel 2009 der Länder Berlin und Brandenburg. Broschüre, 2009. Vereinigung der Unternehmensverbände in Berlin und Brandenburg e.V., Senatsverwaltung für Wirtschaft, Arbeit und Frauen and Industrie- und Handelskammer zu Berlin et al. (2008) Berlin 2004-2014: Eine Wachstumsinitiative. Monitoring 2008, Berlin. Vereinigung der Unternehmensverbände in Berlin und Brandenburg e.V., Senatsverwaltung für Wirtschaft, Arbeit und Frauen, Industrie- und Handelskammer zu Berlin, Handwerkskammer Berlin and Bauindustrieverband Berlin-Brandenburg e.V. (2004) Berlin 2004-2014: Eine Wachstumsinitiative, Berlin. Vereinigung der Unternehmensverbände in Berlin und Brandenburg e.V. (UVB), Senatsverwaltung für Wirtschaft, Technologie und Frauen, IHK Berlin, Handwerkskammer Berlin, Bauindustrieverband Berlin-Brandenburg and Gewerkschaftsbund Bezirk Berlin-Brandenburg (2011) Wachstumsinitiative Berlin: Energie – Technik, Effizienz, Services aus der Hauptstadtregion, Berlin. Zimmermann, K. (2006) ‘Regional Governance als kollektiver Lernprozess?’, in Kleinfeld, R., Plamper, H. and Huber, A. (eds) Regional Governance, vol. 2. Göttingen: 289-303. ZukunftsAgentur Brandenburg GmbH (ZAB) TSB Innovationsagentur Berlin GmbH; Ministerium für Wirtschaft des Landes Brandenburg; Senatsverwaltung für Wirtschaft, Arbeit und Frauen (Hg.) (2008): Innovationsgipfel 2008 der Länder Berlin und Brandenburg. Innovationsgipfel 2008 der Länder Berlin und Brandenburg. IHK Potsdam, 03.11.2008.

Gualini and Fricke – RC21 Conference Urbino 2015 session G5: Governing Metropolitan Cities 21